Syria intervention: Obama's unpopular choices

President Obama will understand that even his limited military option will cause deaths, possibly of innocent civilians.

White House: Amanda Lucidon

Barack Obama has often said that there can only be a political solution, not a military one. Even a limited strike against Syrian targets will win him few friends, writes Rodger Shanahan.

President Obama is unlikely to win praise from any quarter when he orders the punitive strike against Syrian targets that appears inevitable. He has proven to be a reluctant commander-in-chief in many ways, because he understands the limits of United States power in a way that his predecessor didn't.

In the case of Syria he has often said that there can only be a political solution, not a military one. His senior military adviser has pointed out publicly the limitations of all the military options available to the president, as well as the fact that there is no unified (or pro-Western) opposition capable of taking advantage of any decisive shift in military power in Syria if Washington created it. Philosophically he is reluctant to enter into another extended military conflict having spent much of his presidency withdrawing from two.

The United States and a few of its allies are likely to undertake a punitive missile strike that will be of short duration, of limited intensity and against a relatively small number of targets. The mission's aims will be limited; to exact a price on the Syrian regime and to dissuade them from using chemical weapons again.

The attack will in all likelihood be launched using ship-launched missiles, possibly with support from air assets. The idea will be to undertake a military strike with as little risk to coalition personnel as possible and with an equally minimal risk of civilian casualties. No military option can entirely mitigate the possibility of civilian deaths. Incorrect or our-of-date target data, munitions that malfunction or miss their target or just plain bad luck are all errors that may well have fatal consequences for non-combatants. President Obama will understand that even his limited military option will cause deaths, possibly of innocent civilians.

Even a limited strike will win him few friends though. Domestically there is little appetite for a new military intervention in the Middle East, regardless of how limited or whether it is in response to the use of chemical weapons. The first signs of civilian casualties (and the Syrian regime will make accusations regarding them whether well-founded or not) will bring condemnation from Syria's allies such as Russia and Iran and, the longer the strikes continue from non-aligned states.

Anti-war groups in the United States will also chime in. Without the benefit of a UN Security Council resolution, Obama will likely resort to a humanitarian intervention argument to justify his actions. This is likely to see him face criticism from some elements who will argue that there is insufficient legal justification for his actions.

At the same time, Syrian opposition groups and Congressional hawks will accuse the Obama administration of not going far enough. They will never be satisfied until the United States is decisively committed to toppling the Assad regime without any consideration of what is supposed to replace it.

If US military action stops the future use of chemical weapons by the Syrian government but does nothing for the broader civil war, then the aim of the action will have been achieved. It also provides pause for thought for any other government who may in the future seek to use them. If there are further proven instances of their use by the Syrian government then the United States can increase the intensity of its military action while remaining under the threshold of a balance shifting response. Nothing about the likely limited military response is going to be easy, nor is it likely to please anyone. But to do nothing would be to condone the use of chemical weapons that are anathema to the international community, while to do too much would be to make things easier for opposition fighters who share few of the United States' values or interests. President Obama is going to have to argue his case for a limited strike, knowing that it will satisfy nobody but that the alternative options are either morally bankrupt or practically undesirable.

Dr Rodger Shanahan was the Chief of Army Visiting Fellow at the Lowy Institute for International Policy and is now a non-resident Fellow at the Lowy Institute of International Policy. View his full profile here.